Signs in Mountain Lion point to “retina” display MacBooks sooner than later

High-resolution graphics are popping up in unexpected places in Mountain Lion …

A new clue found within in the latest developer release of OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion) suggests that 2012 may bring us the "summer of retina display Macs." A source with access to the latest Mountain Lion preview alerted Ars that double-sized graphics have popped up in some unexpected places, once again suggesting that Apple may be close to releasing MacBooks with high pixel-density screens.

One example comes from Messages, Apple's replacement for iChat. While using the app under the second developer preview of Mountain Lion, some icons are erroneously displaying 2x resolution art. In the image below, the "audio chat" icon is a 2x version instead of the standard 1x version, according to our source.

Note the double-sized icon popping out of where a standard size icon should fit.

"I would interpret it to mean that Retina [MacBook] is close; perhaps concurrent with the release of OS X 10.8," our source said.

As we noted late last year, the tech to create suitably pixel-dense displays already exists, and the ability to adapt OS X's UI to those displays is already present in the form of "HiDPI" display modes. Apple has already been incorporating 2x UI elements such as cursors and other objects into recent releases of OS X 10.7 (Lion), as well.

With Mountain Lion scheduled to be released sometime this summer and Intel's next-generation Ivy Bridge processors expected to have wide availability at about the same time, we agree that this latest evidence points toward Apple unveiling MacBook Pros and possible MacBook Airs with "retina" displays in the next few months.

118 Reader Comments

If this is true.. well.. I think a lot more people are going to buy Macbooks.You have to respect Apple for pushing things forward. They lead, and create the standard that other companies desperately try to imitate.

Retina displays are going to come out, and pull the need for more hard drive space, CPU, and RAM right up there with them - just when we were all wondering exactly what we were supposed to do with all of these CPU cycles.

Why have a convoluted system of different sized bitmaps and DPI settings? OS X and Windows both do it. (Read yesterday's Win 8 article about support for high res screens and the 140% and 180% zoom and different bitmap resources for different resolutions.)

I've designed web sites with SVG graphics used for the menus and backgrounds and icons and so on. If a Web browser can do it an OS certainly can.

No, you can't have photorealistic images in vector (Actually you can, but it is a lot of hard work and not worth the trouble) but that isn't a problem. GUI widgets are simple. They are perfect for vector graphics.

I am excited to see this, though. And it means good things for all display vendors through the industry once they catch up to Apple. They can re-sell us the same monitors we have with double the resolution for triple the price.

High PPI for something I can't see the pixels on now? Where do I sign away my money? I was only going to spend it on something useful otherwise.

For small, portable displays, the benefits of denser pixels are obvious, since you're going to notice pixellation on a 3.5" display at less than 15 cm from your face. A 13" display at the optimal use distance of a desktop/laptop? It's redundant, and frankly, I wish this wanking over "Retina" displays would stop. It'd be like wanting a 300+ PPI display on a 32" HDTV. Why?

This makes me very excited, and I'm not even a Mac fan. The resolution on current generation notebooks is pathetic, hopeful this will make the PC makers shape up (as have other Apple-started design ideas).

As a worst case scenario I can buy a Mac and install Windows and Linux on in.

Retina is the end of the line you don't get any higher than this. So after this Retina the next production lineup would better be a "3D" display on all MacBook. How about a "3D Retina" displays on a 13" Air, would it be nice?

Windows supports completely arbitrary resolution as long as the graphics output can handle it. So you can have it at 2048px just fine, just everything will be pretty small.

I was going to get a nice new laptop soon and dual boot Windows/Linux, but as soon as I saw the retina iPad I knew to wait and get a retina Mac instead (because they will almost certainly be out before any retina PC of respectable quality). Smart move, Apple, smart move...

There are many, many legitimate reasons to dislike Apple and/or their products, but I think we all owe them one for coercing the industry to start taking screens more seriously.

Edit: admiral valdemar: if it doesn't make a difference to your eyes that's really great for you, but eye strain from computer screens is my daily reality and that of many other people. I have the retina iPhone and iPad and yes, it really makes a difference to me. Keep in mind that "retina" depends on the average distance from the face so a "retina" laptop will have lower ppi.

I think retina display Macs are a given; it's just a question of when, not if. The new iPad proves it - if Apple can produce enough 10" 2048x1536 iPad displays to meet demand, it can't be that much more difficult to make 11" retina displays for MacBook Airs (and they sell many more iPads than they do Macs).

Retina displays are going to come out, and pull the need for more hard drive space, CPU, and RAM right up there with them - just when we were all wondering exactly what we were supposed to do with all of these CPU cycles.

Well, at least it's something at least somewhat useful, particularly if you have good eyes. But I'd predict the resolutions will be lower DPI than the iPad 3, because anything else would be just plain crazy; I'm sure most of use have seen the chart:

Extrapolating from that, at a 20" diagonal w/ 20/20 vision you'll be able to differentiate 2160p resolution around foot away from your eyes. The upshot is that I think doing what Apple has done so far and add 4 pixels for everyone 1 pixel in the "retina display" is just crazy; on the current 13" MacBook Pro you'd be going from 1280x800 -> 2740x1600 which puts you at a PPI of more than 2160p at 20", no one's going to be able to fully appreciate that resolution.

High PPI for something I can't see the pixels on now? Where do I sign away my money? I was only going to spend it on something useful otherwise.

For small, portable displays, the benefits of denser pixels are obvious, since you're going to notice pixellation on a 3.5" display at less than 15 cm from your face. A 13" display at the optimal use distance of a desktop/laptop? It's redundant, and frankly, I wish this wanking over "Retina" displays would stop. It'd be like wanting a 300+ PPI display on a 32" HDTV. Why?

If they can introduce retina display Macs at the same prices as today's Macs (which is entirely reasonable, seeing as how they did the same with both the iPhone and iPad), why *not* do it?

Retina displays are going to come out, and pull the need for more hard drive space, CPU, and RAM right up there with them - just when we were all wondering exactly what we were supposed to do with all of these CPU cycles.

Well, at least it's something at least somewhat useful, particularly if you have good eyes. But I'd predict the resolutions will be lower DPI than the iPad 3, because anything else would be just plain crazy; I'm sure most of use have seen the chart:

Extrapolating from that, at a 20" diagonal w/ 20/20 vision you'll be able to differentiate 2160p resolution around foot away from your eyes. The upshot is that I think doing what Apple has done so far and add 4 pixels for everyone 1 pixel in the "retina display" is just crazy; on the current 13" MacBook Pro you'd be going from 1280x800 -> 1740x1600 which puts you at a PPI of more than 2160p at 20", no one's going to be able to fully appreciate that resolution.

Indeed. I had CRTs years ago the same size as my desktop replacement laptop's monitor which could output far higher resolutions, but had similar PPI. The ability to make smaller pixel elements isn't what people here seem to be wanting. It's simply having a larger range of resolutions attainable, which on the bigger displays, needs nowhere near the PPI of the Retina displays, just as 1080P on a large HDTV doesn't mean some super fancy high PPI panel either. Pixel density is irrelevant without factoring in distance or use and, additionally, visual acuity.

If this is true.. well.. I think a lot more people are going to buy Macbooks.You have to respect Apple for pushing things forward. They lead, and create the standard that other companies desperately try to imitate.

Yes, Android is completely F*cked! No desktop OS to combine with a moblie OS.

If they can introduce retina display Macs at the same prices as today's Macs (which is entirely reasonable, seeing as how they did the same with both the iPhone and iPad), why *not* do it?

There's no reason not to, IF the price is acceptable (an iPad is still not a 13" MacBook Pro). The point is: you won't notice it. Unless you presently type with your chin on your wrists, in which case, you have other issues.

Crying for Retina displays here with a "Why not?" can then be asked of the likes of Sony. Why oh why have we not got such high PPI TVs now, when the ability to make much denser panels has been around for years. Hint: answer above.

This may be what pushes me to get a Mac. Unless I can get a sub $400 "retina" display to replace my cool, but frankly boring 22" 1080p monitor. Samsung, HP, LG, where on earth are you guys? Please make an affordable "retina" monitor and save me from the cult of mac

This may be what pushes me to get a Mac. Unless I can get a sub $400 "retina" display to replace my cool, but frankly boring 22" 1080p monitor. Samsung, HP, LG, where on earth are you guys? Please make an affordable "retina" monitor and save me from the cult of mac

Just move your monitor twice as far away from you as it currently sits and the apparent DPI will double.

Question for those wanting this option to allow themselves to swallow their pride and defect to Apple: when the iPhone 4 came out, did you see the display on it as a singular reason for switching from whatever mobile you had at the time, or were planning on getting? If not, why?, and in this instance, is a display of questionable additional benefit really worth moving from what you have now to Apple's system?

I truly am curious about why this whole thing is THE one issue for so many fence sitters. It sounds like a rather shallow excuse to just fork out for something they wanted anyway, because I refuse to believe anyone switches OS and hardware purely for this reason, which is frankly a pretty dumb one.

I have 1920x1080 on my 15" laptop, and quite frankly, I can't see the pixels unless I move my face really close, but sitting comfortably, what, 24"+ away from the screen, I find it more than suitable.

Now if you told me they were going to put super AMOLED displays on laptops, I would be going bonkers. I can't wait to have a super AMOLED HDTV, and small monitors would be the first step toward that goal.

(For the record, I have 20/12 and 20/13 vision in my left/right eyes, which is nearly 2x better than average human)

studentx wrote:

crackedCRT wrote:

If this is true.. well.. I think a lot more people are going to buy Macbooks.You have to respect Apple for pushing things forward. They lead, and create the standard that other companies desperately try to imitate.

Yes, Android is completely F*cked! No desktop OS to combine with a moblie OS.

High PPI for something I can't see the pixels on now? Where do I sign away my money? I was only going to spend it on something useful otherwise.

For small, portable displays, the benefits of denser pixels are obvious, since you're going to notice pixellation on a 3.5" display at less than 15 cm from your face. A 13" display at the optimal use distance of a desktop/laptop? It's redundant, and frankly, I wish this wanking over "Retina" displays would stop. It'd be like wanting a 300+ PPI display on a 32" HDTV. Why?

Having more readable text on desktop/laptop displays isn't that redundant. I'm not sure about the being "obvious" factor. Having a screen resolution where you AREN'T noticing the pixels could be a very welcome thing.

It's just a matter of time that higher resolution screens will be the standard.I have a feeling many people actually do notice and appreciate higher resolutions.

I'm loving web sites and text on the new iPad.

Not to make fun, but have you ever had your eyes checked for farsightedness?

Having more readable text on desktop/laptop displays isn't that redundant. I'm not sure about the being "obvious" factor. Having a screen resolution where you AREN'T noticing the pixels could be a very welcome thing.

It's just a matter of time that higher resolution screens will be the standard.I have a feeling many people actually do notice and appreciate higher resolutions.

I'm loving web sites and text on the new iPad.

Not to make fun, but have you ever had your eyes checked for farsightedness?

I have at least 20/20 on last check up a few years back, with no genetic predispositions to poor eye sight. I can make out the pixels on my iPhone's Retina display from several centimetres using one of the Retina test cards one blog came up with recently (single line distinction). The OOOH, AHHH factor of the Retina display is a big reason why I use it for reading ebooks now, which made me reconsider getting a Kindle in addition.

With that said, I still don't get the clamouring seen over this rumour on the web. It really isn't something I'd switch from Windows over, as I did last year, because from any comfortable distance, my display can show sub-10 point fonts with no issues to legibility at all. And if it's smaller (which would be a terrible design choice), I can always zoom. I far prefer larger, bolder text as in Instapaper's rendering in Chrome and iA Writer for word processing.

Hell, I've even switched to the second from smallest font on the Kindle iOS app, because it reads nicer, even if I have to turn pages a bit more than when reading on the smallest font (which some at work thought was totally unreadable, and that was coming from relative kids which I found hilarious. I'm 28).

This may be what pushes me to get a Mac. Unless I can get a sub $400 "retina" display to replace my cool, but frankly boring 22" 1080p monitor. Samsung, HP, LG, where on earth are you guys? Please make an affordable "retina" monitor and save me from the cult of mac

Just move your monitor twice as far away from you as it currently sits and the apparent DPI will double.

no point in having a retina display for the macbook if the GPU it comes with cannot play games at that resolution maxed out.

That's nonsense. Even on today's laptops, many users run games at a lower resolution.

Super high resolution is not all _that_ useful for games or other media apps. It's mainly all about text and fine details in smaller UI elements. Retina has never been about gaming (though certainly the boost is appreciable) but always about making Web browsing and reading have an "almost like print on paper" quality to it.